E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSTo see where the presidential candidates stand on taxing the rich, just look at how they'd tax themselves. Under his own proposal, Mitt Romney would pay half what he would under President Barack Obama's tax plan. For a man of Romney's means, that could save almost $5 million a year.
For Obama, not so loaded as Romney but still well-off, losing re-election could provide a tax windfall. He'd save as much as $90,000 a year if Romney's plan were enacted rather than his own tax-the-rich vision.
Two nonprofit research groups, the liberal-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice and conservative-leaning Tax Foundation, did the calculations, based on the most recent completed tax returns released by the candidates. Compared with what they owed in April, both men would be dinged in 2013 under Obama's proposal, along with other wealthy taxpayers. They could expect savings under Romney, depending on which tax breaks the former Massachusetts governor decides to oppose.
Whether they go up or down, the candidates' personal tax bills won't make a dent in the nation's trillion-dollar annual deficits, of course. But they illustrate a sticking point in the struggle to fix the nation's finances: Just how much should affluent Americans pony up?
Democrats generally say the rich aren't paying their fair share; most Republicans argue that raising taxes on the wealthy would slow investment that creates jobs. The dispute makes it tougher to tackle urgent budget issues, such as whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts again before they expire Jan 1.
Democratic faith see waning support for Obama
Support for continuing the tax cuts for the middle class is wide, but a fight is under way over what to do about the wealthy.
"There's quite a difference at higher incomes between the Obama and Romney plans," said Gil Charney, principal tax researcher for the Tax Institute at H&R Block. "Obama is looking at the rich — millionaires and billionaires — as a source of additional revenue to the government, where Romney is looking at them as a potential spark for economic growth."
Obama's plan would hit couples making more than $250,000 per year from several directions, raising their tax rate, dunning them more for investment income, and limiting their tax deductions. People like Romney with earnings from private equity management would lose a big tax break. And Obama would establish a rule, named after billionaire Warren Buffett, to ensure that households taking in more than $1 million a year pay at least 30 percent in taxes.
Obama's health care law, already in place, also raises Medicare taxes on the wealthy, especially big investors, starting in 2013. That could cost Romney more than $800,000.
None of this would come close to balancing the budget, but it could add billions of dollars per year to help reduce the deficit.
Romney wants to lower current tax rates for everyone by 20 percent. This benefits the wealthy most: Dropping the highest bracket from 35 percent to 28 percent, for example, yields a much bigger savings for those at the top than lowering the 15 percent bracket to 12 percent brings for taxpayers in that group.
Romney also would eliminate the much-despised alternative minimum tax, which hits the rich and some middle-class taxpayers, too. He wants to repeal Obama's health care law and its taxes. Romney would pair his tax cuts with huge spending reductions eventually reaching $500 billion per year.
To help offset the government's losses from lower rates, Romney says he would end some tax breaks. But he hasn't said which ones, so it's impossible to calculate the effect.
At the extreme, if Romney persuaded Congress to eliminate all itemized deductions — hard to imagine politically — that could add another $1.3 million to what he owes under his own plan, according to Tax Foundation analyst Nick Kasprak.
Under that scenario, Romney's bill would still be $3.5 million less than under Obama's plan.
Kasprak expressed skepticism that Romney would target enough tax breaks to offset the tax cuts he proposes.
"You'd have to get rid of the vast majority of deductions and credits in the tax code to make it work, including some sacred cows like the mortgage interest deduction, child tax credit, etcetera," Kasprak said.
Spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Romney envisions changes to create a "fairer and simpler tax system," but did not give details.
Here's how the plans the two candidates have described so far would play out in 2013. The numbers are from calculations by Citizens for Tax Justice, corroborated by the Tax Foundation (although it would use slightly lower figures for Obama that exclude employer-paid Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes):
Romney
Assuming inflation-adjusted earnings of $23 million, he'd pay an effective rate of 34 percent under the Obama plan. That drops to 13 percent under Romney's own tax proposal — even lower than the 15 percent he estimated for 2011, which irritated critics who felt a multi-millionaire investor should shoulder a higher rate than middle-class working families.
The difference between the two candidates' plans: paying the taxman $7.8 million vs. $3 million.
Obama
Like others who are taxed at earned income instead of investment rates, Obama's bill wouldn't swing as dramatically under the differing plans. He reported paying an effective tax rate of almost 21 percent on about $790,000 in income in 2011. Under his own plan, that would climb to 28 percent. Under Romney's plan, it drops to 18 percent.
The difference: $248,000 vs. $158,000.
The figures were based on Obama's 2011 tax return and Romney's 2010 return. Romney has filed for an extension and released only preliminary 2011 numbers.
Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, said Romney's savings for the wealthy come at the expense of everyone else.
"If we have more tax cuts for the rich, or even keep the ones we have now, then somebody's got to pay for it," McIntyre said, either in higher taxes or by losing government services.
At the Tax Foundation, Kasprak called Romney's plan a step in the right direction because it would lower tax rates overall and thin the tangle of deductions and credits. He called Obama's proposal "complex and arbitrary."
Odds of either candidate getting his full plan through Congress after the Nov. 6 election are slim. Efforts to reform the tax code have been mired in partisan bickering for years. But pressure is building to do something.
"Just because Romney wins or Obama wins doesn't mean that what they're proposing becomes law," said Charney of H&R Block. "What may be more likely is bits and pieces happening."
Leave a Comment:
So.... wring your hands for George's beneficiary now... Obama's wind would cost Mittless 1% of his wealth.
I can't catch my breath... the injustice.
It's about time Mitt pays up on his taxes, hiding your money is not cool !!!
Thank you for your comment, though it seems your username should be mr. gestapo, not "Patriotic American".
Oh please, please Mr Romney, we need that $5 Million for Solyndra! Um wait, how about for the Chevy Volt, ugh that was a bust too..... how about for some golf outings for Obama??
I will work extra hard now to reelect President Obama... ;-)
this is pure speculation since Romney refuses to release his tax returns. He will release them on November 7, 2012.
sirie
Do you know how many billions of $ go into R&D failures before a company comes up with a winner? If companies were too affraid to fail before finding the right formula, you wouldn't have Viagra today.
Tax cuts did not work for Bush, so why does Romney want to continue the failed Bush experiment?
Tax cuts worked fine for Bush and his buddies, they just screwed up the rest of the country.
So let's recap all this. There are 321,294 families filing income taxes who earn over 1,000,000 per year. If we get $5,000,000 from each (not realistic but that is a number), we would get an extra $1.6 trillion. What is the current deficit (can't look at a budget as the Senate tabled all), but the estimate is just over a $1 trillion. So we can put some into the debt $16 trillion debt. Okay? Now remember that next year the number of taxpayers will be lower as we have taken away their money for this year. So all we have accomplished is lowered the wealth of some, done away with current deficit spending, lowered the national debt by about $500 Billion but not reduced spending one penny. So the debt will never go away until spending is reduced. Look at how hard they are working to do away with the mandatory cuts because they couldn't decide what to cut themselves. So they will break that law and not reduce spending and the deficit could grow, unknown by us because the Senate (Harry Reid) refuses to pass a budget. This keeps spiraling upward. Don't you see a trend?
I wonder how much it would be if it were to include his oversea accounts?
Great American Rummy is...won't even chip in to run the country he's suppose to love and wants to become the leader of.....and people will vote for him. Go figure...never can underestimate the stupidity of some uninformed people.
Obama won't win, he's an amateur, just like Clinton said. One and done!
You keep hitting Obama about Solyndra yet Romney invested in the now bankrupt Konarka. What's the diff?
The wealthy need to pay more, and the middle class needs a break so they can increase their spending to help the economy.
Let's face it, England is going into a double dip, because they did not raise revenues and followed the "cuts only" policy.
Do Republicans learn from their mistakes? It's doesn't seem so.
The difference is using your own money vs using the taxpayer's money. It's the democratic way, spend other people's money.
There is no such thing as "using your own money vs taxpayer money" because in the end, when those companies are taken over the first thing that happens is the "Fat" is cut and those workers are sent right into the unemployment line where tax payers pay the bill. If their worker's benefits or pensions are cut "to make the business more profitable", the taxpayer pays the bills. So you see, unless there is a rule change that says "if you have mass layoffs or take over a company and immediately start cutting jobs, you must pay those employees unemployment benefits for 99 wks or until the workers find new employment... the taxpayers always pay the bill! so when its convenient for Romney to say "We need to get the govt out of the way" he is not telling you, "Oh, BTW govt, we need you to refund the pensions we raided" That is when govt is needed.. Give me a break!
Hey Crystal, are you Fool's Gold as well?
Crystal - If you think Willard was investing his own money while at Bain, you are in for a big surprse.
Show me a vote for BO and Ill show you a very uninformed individual or a Marxist gaining power and money. How can anyone claim intelligence if they vote for more FAILED BO policies?
A vote for Obama is a vote to save this Nation, a Mitt vote would be the end of America !!!!!!!!!
sirie, I understand you probably get your news from FOX so you are uninformed, (in fact more uninformed than people who NEVER read or watch the news according to the latest research) but if you don't want to continue to embarrass yourself on websites where people are informed, you might want to get a few facts before you post. Over 15,000 Volts sold, apparently, Chevy calls that a success. And you can complain about investing in Solyndra, because that was a failed investment, but does it make more sense to worry about the flowers on the front step while the house burns down?
Does it make more sense to worry about a one-time bad investment of $5 million or (just to pull up one example) the $4 billion in oil subsidies (welfare) multiplied by just the past 10 years is $40 billion.
Conservatives can do the math, $5 million or $40 billion. Which cost should we focus on cutting?
The thing I don't get is we seem to be so polarized one way or the other. It has to be all or nothing left or right. This just doesn't sit well.
Folks want to cut government spending but if they do, they will also be cutting jobs that extend beyond just government employees.
Folks want to increase the tax liability of the high earners but the high earners claim the income they get is from investments (capital gains taxes).
Why can't we do both and make some rules that let people benefit both ways?
Example:
1. Eliminate capital gains tax rates but enact significant tax relief for those that invest directly in job creation (I'm not talking about mutual funds or buying/selling stocks, I'm talking about angel investors, startups, etc.). This would raise government revenue by raising taxes on the high earners if they are just keeping the money to themselves. This would also force CEOs that are paid in capital gains income to pay up their fair share.
2. Give teeth to the U.S. Government Accountability Office to prosecute abusers, fraudulent individuals, etc. This would also lower wasteful government spending thus reducing deficits.
3. Root out and prosecute those that scan Medicaid. These need to be found and dealt with severely to send a message that it will not be tolerated.
4. Enact campaign reform and recall the Citizen's United ruling.
Now of course, I'm leaving out a bunch of stuff from political favors to things I don't even understand and probably don't want to.
My point is things can get done and nobody will be severely hurt. Progress can be made or at least perceived to be made. After all, it is about perception, isn't it?
What a crap Limbaugh,people who will vote for Romney are stupid and dumb not unless of course to those greedy millionaires and billionaires and wall street vultures that would benefit Romney administration if he wins. Though they already benefit this tax loopholes from the Bush administration that cost U.S.A trillions of dollars giving tax incentives/loopholes to corporates who outsource our jobs to other countries,giving subsidies to china who made business in U.S.A, tax breaks for oil/gasoline investors who profits trillions of dollars that goes to their own pocket or hiding in Swiss bank. Endless of tax loopholes for very rich people who pays less or half of the tax rate with the middle class when Romney and Republicans wins, not to mention yet the unpopular war that the Bush administration created which put Americans more in debt crisis, cost of that war alone is trillions. President Obama inherited all those mess from the Bush administration and yet there are narrow minded Americans expect President Obama to turn around the country like a magician and listens to those foolish and crook Republicans who accused President Obama a failed president? Common sense people, who is a far better President and accomplished significantly the most? Is it the Republican President like the Bushes and Nixon? Or the Democrat Presidents like Clinton (who left big surplus to Bush administration) and President Obama who did an amazing job with over half of his first term alone. In fact, President Obama is one of the best President in the earth.He have done such an amazing job that no President have ever done by killing Osama Bin laden and his successor, saving trillions taxpayers money by ending the war. He pushes the Obama Care which America deserves and should have been for a long time.Without Obama Care people who has a pre existing chronic/acute and serious condition it would be very impossible for anyone to get a healthcare,and countless college student will be no health insurance, and this will be paid by taxing more money to those very rich. This is why the reason it will be a disaster to Republicans if President Obama will get a second term because President Obama will tax more the very rich to give a fair share to our citizens.It is nonsense that middle class and hardworking americans were paying more tax rate than those very rich like Wall Street people,Romney and those corporates getting tax loopholes outsourcing our jobs to other countries.And yes, no more tax loopholes and no more additional trillions pockets for oil business. Now,if you ask yourself about what will happen to our country if Romney will be the president? It will be a disaster! Get the facts, and do serious research how bad he was governing one state where we lived when he was a governor in Massachusetts. Romney governed badly one state already and gush if we will talk about Romney governing the whole country? God of all God please don`t let it happen. Also Romney himself has his own Solyndra using secretly taxpayers money to invest and went bankrupt just like how he handles when he was at Bain Capital. Solyndra was funded and started by the Bush administration.Republicans will go way out of stupid lies and manipulate everything they can to prevent President Obama and Democrats to sit in the house because it would mean misery to them and subtraction to their loopholes. America will cripple severely in the hands of Romney and Republican politician.
#7.7 - Mon Jun 4, 2012 12:59 PM EDT
What nonsense. The President cannot direct that ANYBODY'S taxes will get raised or cut - Only Congress can pass legislation setting tax rates.
So, BFD!
America better think about what it costs her to have Dumbama and sociocrats for another term in office. That makes those 5 million look like candy money.
Mitt Romney = George W. Bush 2.0 PERIOD. Same arguments for cutting taxes, which, inherently benefit the wealthiest the MOST. In addition, Romney has the same basic economic team as Bush. Reducing taxes on the wealthy from 2001-2008 did NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help the job market or spur growth. Bush increased the US debt from 5.7 trillion to 10.6 trillion which does not include the money for Iraq and Afghanistan since they were never accounted during his presidency. First time in US history that we did NOT raise taxes to pay for wars. There is a direct correlation between tax cuts and National debt increases so for those of us who are TRULY concerned with the debt then Romney's (GWB 2.0) economic plan is for the birds. In addition, how does one cut 500 BILLION/year without reducing the defense budget?
This article is very biased, and is only meant to spark class warfare.
As a Republican, I've heard enough about the rich not paying enough taxes. You know what? Raise tax rates as BO wants to do so badly. It has been proven many times that the extra tax revenues will barely scratch the surface of the annual budget deficit (the impact of rising taxes on economic growth is impossible to calculate, but let us just follow classical economic thought that increasing tax rates dampen economic growth).
At the end of the day, raising taxes does not solve any problems. It doesn't help our economy grow, and it doesn't do anything significant to reduce the deficit. For BO to base his entire economic plan on this one policy is ridiculous. It's just part of his blame-game strategy. He convinced the American public to blame Bush in 2008 so he could get elected, and now he's trying to convince the American public that it's the rich peoples' fault for everything that has gone wrong.
We need to streamline spending. Not cut everything, but streamline it so it goes to job-producing investments. We need more fiscal economic stimulus to jumpstart the economy, but in combination we need accountability of where that stimulus money is going, b/c with BO running the ship, only god knows where all the money is going.
Then why are you calling Obama a "tax-and-spend" liberal??? For one thing, he hasn't raised ANYBODY's taxes (unless you count the petty "sin" taxes). For another, he hasn't spent as much as you think he has.
Not necessarily, N. Let's say, for example, that Obama wanted to repeal the Bush tax cuts for everyone, not true, but just saying. If we did that, we would save $3.8 trillion over the next decade, more than halving our current deficits of about $7 trillion. It's true that raising tax rates can dampen economic growth, especially during recessions, but the same happens when you cut spending. You Republicans have to make a choice: endorse austerity, and raise taxes (as raising taxes, on everyone, will heavily impact the deficit); or endorse economic stimulus, and keep tax levels (and spending levels) constant for the time being. It's your choice; but this is all-or-nothing.
Well, cutting spending hurts the economy; so why advocate it if it hurts the recovery??? And repealing the Bush taxes would technically halve the deficit over the next decade, giving us a little breathing space on fiscal matters and thus allowing us to focus on offsetting the effect of increasing taxes via stimulus spending.
Okay, hold on a second. You want to streamline spending, right??? So do I, at least in a more moderate manner. It may be surprising for you to hear that from a "tax-and-spend" liberal, but it's true. I also want economic stimulus. A bit more focused on infrastructure than the last one, but similar in size and scope. But, and here's where we differ, I want tax increases. Not just on the wealthy, and not just to reduce the deficit, though. I say repeal the Bush tax cuts for everyone, raise the top rate to 45%, and raise capital gains and dividends tax rates to 24% and 22%, respectively. I know that it sounds like our economy will take a huge hit, but if we do this during a strong recovery, we can not only reduce the deficit, but we can reduce income inequality. I know you conservatives like to say that income inequality is often derived from globalization and the skills gap, but if that were true, we would see huge economic inequality in places like Germany and other parts of Western Europe. We don't. And by the way, the reason why our recovery is so slow is that the middle class doesn't have the purchasing power that it once had. You can blame that on trickle-down economics. Now, if we raised taxes for everyone, and expanded our welfare structure (not food stamps, but universal healthcare and free education), we could actually improve our economy over the long-term. I know it sounds hard to believe, but it's the truth.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
One of the dumbest articles I've ever read. "I've spent all this time and effort to save on my taxes". If MSNBC wants to put forth such a stupid statement it should do it in a cartoon on the back page of the Enquirer.
Subliminal,
Sit on that middle prong and smile cause you're talkin out that end too much...
For me it's not just about cutting spending...it's about where do we want those cuts to come from. If we can get the top 10% to pay their fair share, cut the farm, oil and corporate subsidies that we pay millions into (even Koch brothers benefit from them) and cut the war machine so we can protect our country and let other countries figure out their own problems we could have a functioning, beneficial society. What's so hard about this?
"From 1995-2009 the largest and wealthiest top 10 percent of farm program recipients received 74 percent of all farm subsidies with an average total payment over 15 years of $445,127 per recipient – hardly a safety net for small struggling farmers. The bottom 80 percent of farmers received an average total payment of just $8,682 per recipient,"
It is impossible to determine exactly how much taxpayer money is dished out just to the oil & gas industry alone. The reason is painfully obvious; our elected officials, and certainly the industry, don’t want the public to know how much it is; they would prefer we didn’t even know it exists. But many organizations and individuals have attempted to do so with limited success. That said, it seems that the general consensus averages’ around $24 billion each year in both direct payouts and Tax Expenditures, with the top number at about $37 billion
It is important to note that many reports on Corporate Subsidies include other things such as Tax Expenditures. Thus, one of the reasons for the conflicting dollar amounts between reports. This effort attempts to focus just on Corporate subsidies, but does reference reports that include Tax Expenditures. That said, the most common figure quoted for Corporate Subsidies only is about $100 billion each year.
DOD budget:
FY2012 Request: $553 billion
FY2011 Request: $549.1 billion
FY2010 Enacted: $530.8 billion
NEED I SAY MORE????
I doubt it! I doubt it strongly!! Gov. Romney will just increase his holdings in Swiss and Cayman accounts!!
As Leona Helmsly said; 'Only little people pay taxes.'
Romney wipes himself with $100 bills, 5 million is a mere pitance to this elite Corporate Raider.....
Are you talking about the Flip Flop toilet paper king Mitt ?????????
Or are you talking about the must have a "car elevator", Mitt Romney.
Jealous?
Oh no, not jealous. Just think we need to go back to where we were in the early 60's. That the rich should pay like 50%.
Mitt don't wipe himself with 100s he pays illegals to wipe him with 100s!
Romney being a Anchor baby, would that make him an illegal ???
So Mitt will only have 285 million dollars if Obama wins and his tax plan goes through Congress.
Isn't that enough money?????
Guess not.
Then the 5 millions dollars would be reinvested in the US economy and jobs would be crested.
Better that then the money be spent by the government paying people not to work.
Oh please, if that's the case then why has true unemployment (U-6) been at 15% his entire administration despite the trillion dollar stimulus bill? Sadly, the left counters "things would have been worse if we hadn't gone deeper in debt." Thankfully, more rational minds are prevailing.
Rational minds, well that leaves Romney "Out"
And leaves you out.
It's amazing that people still cling to the failed idea of "trickle down" economics. Some people are just too dense to learn. Here's a quiz for everyone... what do the Great Depression, the recession under Bush I, and the recession under Bush II all have in common? The tax rate on the highest income tax bracket was at it's three lowest points in the past 100 years. Newsflash - investors invest money because they have something to gain, not because they happen to have some extra money lying around. Look at two years ago, when corporations were sitting on record amounts of cash, but it was still next to impossible to get a loan.
The middle class is the driver of the U.S. economy. Take a look at a graph of the wealth gap in this country ever since "trickle down" economics was tried - increasingly the country is turning into the very rich and the very poor. While the GOP guts the middle class it (unsurprisingly) destroys our economy.
I don't expect the right-wing blowhards on here to actually look at any of these numbers, but for those of you independent thinkers out there just Google "wealth gap" then look at the income tax brackets over the years here:
yeah, right ... $5MM into non-sense waste programs and the military-industrial complex. But, gotta start somewhere.
Ralph5591..............the $5 million would be shipped to offshore accounts and would create no jobs in the USA, only more banker jobs in the Caymans. Don't you read or listen?
Oooo, midas. Clever retort. Next time, how about "I know you are but what am I?"
JackC
You're right about the middle class driving the US economy. Now they need to start paying their fair share. The tax revenue dropped by $TRILLIONS due to the Bush/Obama tax cuts. It will only increase by $BILLIONS with higher taxes on millionaires. We need $TRILLIONS not just $BILLIONS. Let all tax cuts expire. This administration just keeps talking about class warfare and does nothing to solve the problem. I want my representatives to continue to fight tax hikes on only one group because it won't do any good. President Obama has wasted more money in 3 1/2 years than the increase he wants would bring in in 10 years.
Luraine - do you think Patriotic has anything to say that really needs anything but a smart a$$ retort?
I'm seeing it the same way as JackC; trickle down economics was a fun fantasy, but it's had years and we're just digging the hole deeper. After WWII, when this nation began it's post war re-build, the wealthy were indeed footing 70%+ of the tax base to fund the growth boom and what do you know, the country prospered along with the rich. The wealthy business owners got folks working which, in turn, created one of the largest growth periods ever. Strangely enough, they got wealthier and even the little guys got to move forward, so their offspring could advance even further up the line. Not so nowadays.
Now, when we have people raking in multi-million dollar bonuses while there are folks who can't feed their children-and these are good folks who got caught up in the mess of the wealthy getting more so while hard working people are losing everything to the Bernie Madoffs of the world. There is not one human on this planet who deserves that outrageous compensation while there are folks sleeping in the streets and scrounging for something to eat that day. Not one. The reason they don't want to hire is because, ultimately, it will take away from their own pool for bonuses.
When I hear the teapublicans complain about the "entitlements" (SS, unemployment) I am always flabbergasted. The one percent are the ones who feel "entitled" to wipe out the little guy while they procure that million dollar vacation home. So what if you're now left living out of your car, they might not make it if they don't have that place to run away to a couple times a year. I think that until everybody is in a minimum, basic home, with decent, basic food NOBODY should be getting all the good stuff and leaving the rest of us to scramble for crumbs. I have never heard of any tribe on the globe, throughout history, that made some of it's members who were completely capable of helping out with the necessities sit by, move out of the living facility but come back to help every day, or go hungry for stretches of time, while one or two members got all the good stuff the group worked for while those that did the work (hunting, gathering) get little or nothing while that 1% gets it all. Nor did they demand that the aged keep providing long after they were able to keep up with the crowd.
Says who?
Romney has amassed a fortune so vast he is expanding his $12 million beachfront mansion and installing an elevator for his cars. That’s right... for his cars. He says the $374,000 he made in speaking fees isn’t a lot of money. I highly doubt he will be creating jobs for middle class Americans.
Trickle up poverty is not the answer- look at Greece! Eliminate the system suckers! The ones Obama supported in his days as community organizer- sniffing out other people's money to spend.
They aren't Obama tax cuts. Obama tried to return the tax rate to the pre-dubya days. The republicans said NO! Just like they say to anything Obama attempts to do.
sam adams - you are not telling the truth
Obama himself said it would be a bad idea to raise taxes in th emiddle of the recession. He signed the extension of the tax cuts. He owns them now. Why is it so hard for the left to admit to their own deeds?
If the looney left would just ask for ALL tax cuts to expire I would go along with it. But to raise taxes on just one group is wrong. We are all in this together so I hope that the GOP keeps saying NO to the class envy crowd of the democrat party.
They are, have been and always will be "the Bush tax cuts". It is one of his signature moves. Please note these tax cuts were sold to the American populace with the following sales pitches:
1. They will create jobs (time has shown this to be entirely false)
2. They will be temporary (Republicans have broken this promise and now desire to make them permenant under the Ryan plan)
Please also note these tax breaks went into effect at the same time Dubya was skyrocketing government costs (Dept. of homeland security, two wars, prescription drug give-a-way for all seniors for life - all without being paid for).
These policies are all still in place (with the exception of the Iraq war having ended but we still have untold trillions in health care costs for returning veterans). AND WE CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHY WE ARE RUNNING DEFECITS IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!
Cutting funding to planned parenthood isn't going to do it folks.
JH - Don't kid yourself, the Bush tax cuts heavily favor the wealthiest Americans. 30% of the lost revenue goes right to the top 5% of wage earners in America - some of the richest people in the world. How is this paid for? By dumping the debt on the remaining 95% of us. No thanks.
"Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney.
upset
FALSE
The tax cuts did create jobs and increase revenue to the Treasury - LOOK IT UP
Yes they were going to be temporary, but the left decided it should only be temporary for the anyone but the rich, and the right said no, it should be all or nothing. And the vast majority went to the middle class. It cost the government about $6-700 billion for the rich portion and around $3 trillion for the rest over a ten year period. LOOK IT UP
Homeland Security - Who the hell insisted on it being a "union organization"? Don't talk about the high cost when your party is to blame for it being "union". Why didn't the dems do away with the presciption drug program that they complain about? They had the power to change it, yet they did NOTHING but sit around and complain.
As far as I am concerned with Planned Parenthood, it should not receive a single tax dollar as long as it supports abortions. there are a lot of Americans that are against abortions so if Planned Parenthood would just stop supporting abortions they can get tax dollars. There are plenty of places for women to get abortions.
Don't kid yourself, the tax cuts heavily favored the middle class. Do you have any undersatanding of percentages? You are way off in your statement of 30% going to the top 5%. WAY OFF!
Let the tax cuts expire and let it be on the Repub A Teacons heads !!!!!!
@ Sam Adams
Friday, December 17, 2010; 5:05 PM
President Obama signed into law the most significant tax bill in nearly a decade Friday, a day after overcoming liberal resistance in Congress to continue for two more years tax breaks enacted under president George W. Bush and to provide a fresh federal boost for the tepid economic recovery.
Let the tax cuts expire, I am willing to have more taxes being middle class, as long as the top 1% sees their taxes raised.
Trickle down is FAILBOAT, I know it, you know it, so let's be done with it.
GOP agenda has always been, to not pass a single thing BO want's and then to use it against him on re-election claiming failed policy. I am going to laugh my ass off when it fails and BO is re-elected. All that hard work not getting anything done and it didn't pay off.. Classic.
I do believe that true unemployment is 14%, down from around 20% a few years ago. That's a massive improvement, btw. So tell me, if we hadn't wasted $11 trillion (judging the turnaround from the estimate of $5 trillion in surpluses over the next decade in 2000 and the roughly $6 trillion in deficits accrued by Bush) during the Bush administration, if debt was either at 0% or at around $3 trillion (less than 20% of current GDP), we would be able to spend trillions of dollars to boost the economy, and we would be in a much better position than we are now. Unfortunately, rational minds were not as prevalent when George Bush "won" the presidency in 2000...
CORRECTION: Obama may have said that, but he later proposed to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire.
Okay, I want the whole damn thing repealed as well, but I'm being practical. No government that reneged on a promise to keep middle class tax cuts low would stay in power for long, and raising taxes during a recession is generally a bad idea. But, if you want to deal with fiscal problems now, the best way is to raise taxes on the wealthy, who don't impact the economy as much as the middle class. And by the way, why is raising taxes on group wrong??? It may be unfair, but when push comes to shove practicality beats fairness. The wealthy have benefited from 30 years of favorable tax and regulatory policy; the middle class, not so much. How the hell is that fair??? Sometimes you have to compromise. I know liberals that didn't want the tax cuts in the first place, but are willing to compromise to get things done. This uncompromising attitude on the right is what's slowing down this economy. We could get by with the European problems; it wouldn't be easy, but it's doable. But we need people who will compromise their beliefs for the common good. The Democrats have done that; reneging single-payer healthcare for the more market-based individual mandate. You know what they got??? A volley of crap from the right. The wealthy don't need the tax cuts; we can do away with them now. The middle class don't need them, in my opinion, but raising taxes on them during a recession is economic suicide, so I would keep those parts.
And as for the class-envy part, I (and many of my fellow Democrats) are not envious of the wealthy. We don't hate them for being wealthy; what we hate is the wealthy making money while the rest of us are suffering. We want economic equality; the past 30 years have been a touch of economic inequality, essentially a return to the robber-baron days before great trust-busters like Teddy Roosevelt. I myself want to become wealthy, or well-off, one day; but I don't want my nation, which is supposedly based off of the idea that "all men are created equal," to be a place where wealth and power is concentrated in a small group of elitists. I want EVERYONE to prosper when good times come, and EVERYONE to suffer when bad times come. I don't just want the wealthy to prosper in good times while the middle class stay the same, while the wealthy still prosper in bad times while the middle class (and the poor) get thrown to the curb. Economic inequality is a stain on our supposedly democratic society; if we fail to restore economic equality, than we can just quit calling ourselves a democracy and refer to ourselves as what we have become: a political and economic plutocracy.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
And just what exactly would Romney get for forking over 5 million of his money to the government - absolutely nothing. Oh yes, that satisfaction of knowing the government knows better how to spend Mitt Romney's money.
I paint Mitt Romney as a Loser and Losers don't win, time for him to go back to his Looting !!!
American Corporations are sitting on 2 trillion dollars in profit at the moment. They are choosing to not invest it, hire more workers, or increase wages at their companies.
Tell me Dr. Man, do you honestly think that the Federal government would do a worse job with this 2 trillion dollars?
Here, I'll do some simple math for you. Divide 2 trillion dollars by the average American yearly income (roughly 34 thousand dollars). That adds up to 58.82 million jobs at average wage for a year. Divy that up to ten years and you get 5.882 million jobs for ten years. So the question is, "Private industry, where are the f***ing jobs?"
Mitt Romney would finally get to pay his fair share for all of the U.S. resources that he's been using over the past few decades. It's time that he started riding success on the backs of the middle class in this country.
I think you have to ask yourself: Why are they sitting on all those reserves?
Once you can answer that question you'll understand that the only way to stimulate the economy and solve the unemployment issue is to replace the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
No demand - no sales - no hiring. It's that simple. Stimulate demand and things will improve. It's got nothing to do with "uncertainty," taxes, Obamacare or whatever ...
Scrooge, the simple answer to your question is that corporations don't see any way to use that money to extract more money from consumers, mainly because the consumers don't have any more money to spend, it having all been sucked upward into the hands of those investors holding that two trillion. So they leave it sit and collect a pittance in interest, or use it to feed speculative bubbles that are no more than Ponzi schemes for investors, leaving the late-comers, that is the pension funds and private IRA's, to be the losers. The obvious failure of the concentration of wealth to generate jobs is an inconvenient truth to capitalist fundamentalists.
scrooge1963 "I think you have to ask yourself: Why are they sitting on all those reserves?"
They said when Obama was elected that they would do everything in their power to make him and his administration fail. If they were to create jobs, it would make him look good so they have held back and have sent even more jobs overseas to help make the president look bad. The banks refuse to cooperate with homeowners and / or to loan money to the average middle class citizen. The greedy keep taking more and more and all the while complain that it is Obama's fault. If the middle class has no money to spend, the economy cannot recover. The wealthy do NOT spend here, and send their $$ offshore and overseas so they can hide from taxes and make sure that their families get it all.
Dr Man - You don't seem to have any problem with the rest of America having a large tax burden. Why do you defend Mitt Romney's avoidance of the same burden? He is the last person who should be getting these breaks. He doesn't create jobs and doesn't add to society in any way on the open market. Why does he deserve the tax breaks that future generations will have to pay for in debt?
@chris
Who is 'they'?
I know that my household has curtailed spending significantly. We only purchase the essentials and do not plan on any major purchases until this freakin' economy levels out and starts an upward turn.
Our wonderful government has given the ok for all of these writeoffs for the wealthy...they make it appealing for corporations to outsource overseas...yet we are to believe that the wealthy should pay more taxes and corporations should give us jobs and by doing that - the downturn in the economy will be magically righted?
Tell me...can ANYONE from the middle class attend a fund-raising dinner for either candidate? No? WHO attends these events? Certainly not the poor. Must be the wealthy.
Huh,people who will vote for Romney are stupid and dumb not unless of course to those greedy millionaires and billionaires and wall street vultures that would benefit Romney administration if he wins. Though they already benefit this tax loopholes from the Bush administration that cost U.S.A trillions of dollars giving tax incentives/loopholes to corporates who outsource our jobs to other countries,giving subsidies to china who made business in U.S.A, tax breaks for oil/gasoline investors who profits trillions of dollars that goes to their own pocket or hiding in Swiss bank. Endless of tax loopholes for very rich people who pays less or half of the tax rate with the middle class when Romney and Republicans wins, not to mention yet the unpopular war that the Bush administration created which put Americans more in debt crisis, cost of that war alone is trillions. President Obama inherited all those mess from the Bush administration and yet there are narrow minded Americans expect President Obama to turn around the country like a magician and listens to those foolish and crook Republicans who accused President Obama a failed president? Common sense people, who is a far better President and accomplished significantly the most? Is it the Republican President like the Bushes and Nixon? Or the Democrat Presidents like Clinton (who left big surplus to Bush administration) and President Obama who did an amazing job with over half of his first term alone. In fact, President Obama is one of the best President in the earth.He have done such an amazing job that no President have ever done by killing Osama Bin laden and his successor, saving trillions taxpayers money by ending the war. He pushes the Obama Care which America deserves and should have been for a long time.Without Obama Care people who has a pre existing chronic/acute and serious condition it would be very impossible for anyone to get a healthcare,and countless college student will be no health insurance, and this will be paid by taxing more money to those very rich. This is why the reason it will be a disaster to Republicans if President Obama will get a second term because President Obama will tax more the very rich to give a fair share to our citizens.It is nonsense that middle class and hardworking americans were paying more tax rate than those very rich like Wall Street people,Romney and those corporates getting tax loopholes outsourcing our jobs to other countries.And yes, no more tax loopholes and no more additional trillions pockets for oil business. Now,if you ask yourself about what will happen to our country if Romney will be the president? It will be a disaster! Get the facts, and do serious research how bad he was governing one state where we lived when he was a governor in Massachusetts. Romney governed badly one state already and gush if we will talk about Romney governing the whole country? God of all God please don`t let it happen. Also Romney himself has his own Solyndra using secretly taxpayers money to invest and went bankrupt just like how he handles when he was at Bain Capital. Solyndra was funded and started by the Bush administration.Republicans will go way out of stupid lies and manipulate everything they can to prevent President Obama and Democrats to sit in the house because it would mean misery to them and subtraction to their loopholes. America will cripple severely in the hands of Romney and Republican politician.
#7.7 - Mon Jun 4, 2012 12:59 PM EDT
“Utah has also disproportionally financed his rise on the national stage. In 2008, Romney raised more money in Utah than any other state except California." First Read
Curious how much of that loot came directly or indirectly from the Mormon church. Super-Pacs that don't reveal their donors make a perfect conduit.
Since he is all over the map with his ideas and plans, it would surely make you wonder who would be running the country if we have Gov. Romney as president.
The bottem line is Obama had almost 4 years to reduce the deficit it has grown even larger. And I really don't see people better off than 3 and half years ago. I don't see the Republican Candidate doing any better, this country is in serious trouble. America doesn't have the funds for these programs anymore so more people will suffer for the mistakes made in Washington over many years.
How would you reduce the deficit during a recession?
Have you studied economics at all?
chswizard, easy, raise taxes. I don't see the sense of your admonition to "study economics." The problems we face are the consequence of following the advice of experts in economics, not in ignoring them. Every recovery after a disastrous economic downturn has been fueled by reallocating wealth from the hands of an entrenched class of the wealthy into the hands of those who actually work and put wealth to use.
Willard nonsense:
When Obama took office, he inherited a 1.4 Trillion dollar annual deficit. It is less than that now. There goes all credibility for you. Get off the Sean Hannity show if you want to sound reasonably informed.
The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush’s last day in office, which coincided with President Obama’s first day.
The national media are 'experts' @ subliminal messaging... Your headline for this story tells more of a story which way MSNBC leans politically than the story itself. Obama has effectively worked to destroy this nation and everyone in the media ignores the facts and just praises him any chance they get... or demonizes anyone that doesn't agree with him. You are nothing more than puppets; ignorant ones @ that, because if Obama gets re-elected, you will see further attacks on personal freedoms (speech, religion and right to bear arms) and increasing risk for every American's personal well-being.
The guy never managed anything in his life and his presidential record shows it in spades. "Change you can believe in?"... it should have been, "Change you should fear"... Wake up America, before it's too late.
He's turned around the recession with a net increase of over 5 million jobs over 3 years and you call him a failure? I bet you just hate him because he's a democrat.
Also the destruction of freedoms that he has been responsible for are limited to signing the NDAA and renewing the Patriot act. (Only one of these is new)
Unless you can give specific examples of how the president has attacked personal freedoms, I would suggest you stop blowing hot air and go back to school to learn how to think logically and express yourself rationally.
Yes, it's so partisan when a headline states the truth. I can see how someone from the crazy right would think that, since the facts always seem to go against your usual blather.
Were those 5 million jobs as caddie for him on all his golf outings?
sirie....."Were those 5 million jobs as caddie for him on all his golf outings?"
..that is just a plain stupid comment.
At least we can all admit that those 5 million jobs weren't the offspring of tax cuts to the so-called "job creators."
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
This is just the sort of pedantic thinking that has so endeared me to the party of hyperbole (yes, that's sarcasm).
Ugh. This crap about "Job Creators" is getting pretty old. Here's a REAL simple concept. I make 100 million dollars each year making Light Bulbs. I get a 5% tax cut. Cool! 5 million extra. But wait, I don't need to make more light bulbs, people only need so many. AND, if I make too many, the value of the bulbs will decrease, so I better keep things exactly the same. Should I create new positions or increase wages for my workers? Nah, they're doing OK. And why would I? I'm making $5mil more a year without lifting a finger.
THAT is how it works. Please keep the rubbish of job creators to yourself. It makes me heave.
It's good to know that there are at least some intelligent people out there who understand this simple concept.
The $5 million might offset the high price of gas so as to preclude a price increase; depending on timing it might allow for a price reduction. Or investment in new technology - don't be short sighted.
It was not government programs that brought us out of the depression, it prolonged it.
It was not government programs that turned the economy around during the Reagan years.
It was not government programs that turned the economy around during the Clinton years.
It was the government that brought the bust at the end of the Bush years - is it a surprise that the economy folding corresponds with the Congress shifting parties?
We need to end wasteful spending and unnecessary government programs. If you want something, plan to pay for it YOURSELF (vice a government handout) and recognize that for the most part, the government can not provide the service better than private companies.
"We need to end wasteful spending and unnecessary government programs. If you want something, plan to pay for it YOURSELF (vice a government handout) and recognize that for the most part, the government can not provide the service better than private companies."
Private companies are FOR PROFIT!!! Private companies do not provide any service to anyone without first looking at how much profit they will make. There are people that have mental and physical problems that they did not ask for, some people aren't as smart as others or as lucky. People have accidents and illnesses and any number of serious problems that they did cause. Our tax money being spent to provide assistance for those less fortunate is a good investment in my opinion. Tax money being spent for illegal wars and oil company subsidies and benefits for the wealthy are not good investments and I want MY tax dollars to go to education, safety, and quality of life for as many people as possible. NOT WARS so the powerful rich can steal more of our money. Anyone questioning where all of the money that disappeared from Iraq went? Follow the money and you will find the corrupt and criminal.
The example I gave is obviously incredibly basic. The point I was making is that there is 0 incentive for a company to invest bonus equity, PARTICULARLY when most - if not all - companies have already budgeted for R&D and fuel cost increases. Also, from personal experience, large corporations are MORE than happy to sacrifice for the bottom line, even if they're miles into the black. Gotta keep the investors happy!
I'm not real sure what your basing your facts on, by the way. I'm actually an independent, and I think that we would do well to have less government programs. BUT, I also think that THE GREATEST COUNTRY in the world can spare a couple of bucks and help out its population when it's down in its luck.
Good analogy Chip. Hopefully simple enough for the right wing nuts.
Jim - government programs are another issue, you sound confused.
Chip,
NO NO NO NO NO. I don't get it. If you have a company, and that company has $100 million in profits, then the company EARNED every penny of those profits, and if they can manage to get the goverment to take less of that profit that they worked hard for, good for them. It is NOT the government giving them 5 million "extra," it is 5 million of their own money that the government isn't taking.
Do you honestly look at your own paychecks and say "I am so glad the government allows me to keep X% of my paycheck, that is so nice of them to allow me to keep that money." I am betting that you, like me, look at your paycheck at the taxes taken out and think "wow, I could have used some of that money to pay down my mortgage, or towards a new car, or improve my house, or put toward retirement, ect." That is because you earned that money, you worked for it, you deserve it, and the government should have to work to justify to you, and every other taxpayer, why they are entitled to that money, not the other way around. They are not being altrusitic if they don't take all of YOUR money away from you, whether you make $10,000 or $10,000,000.
Government is a series of products and services really, although people don't think of it that way, and you should feel like you are getting a good value for what you are paying. I bet when you go to a store to buy a new car, or furniture, or anything else that can be negociated, you negociate a price that you feel represents a fair value. Why can't you apply the same logic to government.
I am not suggesting that we pay no taxes to the government, clearly people and businesses get benefits from roads, public education, police/fire departments, millitary (to what level can be argued, but you need some millitary available) and publicly funded utilities, bridges, ect. And it is more than fair for us to all pay a share of those things, as well as the funding the structure of the government itself, but beyond what that should be costing us, what we should pay becomes fuzzy for social programs ect.
Point being, the government NOT taking money away that you earned, whether you are "poor" or "rich" is not giving you money, you earned every penny, and should act like it in view of your taxes, just like you act like it when you go to buy product or service anywhere else.
Jim Thomas
It was the government that brought the bust at the end of the Bush years - is it a surprise that the economy folding corresponds with the Congress shifting parties?
I take issue with you blaming the Government. The financial collapse was caused by gullible consumers hooked on liars loans who convinced themselves that housing prices would soar forever. The financial powerhouses made tons of money connecting these unwashed masses with investors who bought CDO's looking for risk free high yield income.
It is convenient to blame it one one entity, but the reality is the "government" was no smarter than the "sophisticated" investors who bought that sh"t.
Hiap-
Who wouldn't like more money? But honestly, why are the wealthy so resistant to paying taxes? Yes, I suppose you could argue they "create" jobs. By the same token, they wouldn't be wealthy without the support of the communities and municipalities in which they hold residence (corporation or otherwise.) In fact, I again know from personal experience that local governments make concessions through tax breaks and incentives to bring in or KEEP jobs around. Hell, look at the ACTUAL tax rates of medium to large businesses. So often the argument of "highest corp. tax rate in the world" is moot, because they're paying virtually nothing (or nothing at all) to begin with. If things are so bad here and taxes are so much of burden SURELY picking up and moving to another country would be significantly cheaper, even with infrastructure build-up. If you want to live in the penthouse, you gotta pay the rent.
Well, technically it was the stimulus (a government program) that got us out of the depression.
It was increased military spending to "hold of the commies."
Well, technically the Clinton economy was great due to the dot-com explosion. There was no serious recession that hampered the economy.
Is it a surprise that Congress has suddenly become less productive via legislation passed after the GOP took over the House and abused the filibuster in the Senate???
Okay, hold on a second. I agree that wasteful spending and unnecessary government programs should be cut. But for the most part, most government programs (barring separate ones that do the same thing) are actually necessary. Food stamps helped keep thousands of people from going into poverty and kept demand steady. Unemployment benefits help serve as a net for the unemployed, making sure that being fired is not a death sentence. Social Security and Medicare have kept millions of seniors from going into poverty, and with a few reforms (not privatization or repeal) we can easily extend their lifetimes indefinitely. And I can think of five sectors where the government beats the private sector (regulation, education, healthcare, defense, protecting the environment). Tough luck selling your right-wing ideology to the rest of the country, Jim.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Would we really care about making the rich pay more if we weren't still suffering in a crisis? If I recall correctly, the economic crisis is the result of the housing collapse. So, it stands to reason that all the people buying houses they knew they couldn't afford back then have created an economy that yields a desire to stick it to the rich guy now. Hmm...sounds a little like jealousy.
Somebody has amnesia, do you remember the advertisements and the deceptive realtors?
Chip,
I know you don't want to hear this, but because of the lack of regulation of the banks that sold those mortgages, we had people signing up for homes they should not have. Years ago, a bank would not look at you if you could not prove that you had a decent job and that you could put down a substantial sum of money. Also, when we bought our first home, they considered only my husband's salary, even though we earned almost the same amount, because I decided to take time off when we had kids. So, I would say you are only half right in your assessment of the recent mortgage mess. The banks have to take some of the blame. Maybe regulation is not always as bad in the long run.
yes, raggedy man, it was the housing "crisis," but look at what actually happened there: The working people were spending all they had buying all of the things the corporations were selling to them, from cars to crock-pots. Gee, we have to have increased growth because that's what our economic system is based on, but the people ran out of money. Well, we're just going to have them go out and borrow since then we can not only get all of the money they have now, but the money they get in the future too! Sell them houses. That will create demand for more houses. That will push up prices. That will increase the value of the houses. That will increase household "wealth," allowing them to borrow and buy more. But wait! Their wages haven't gone up, so they won't be able to pay those future debts! That means demand for those houses will drop. That means prices will go down. That means personal "wealth" declines. That means people won't be able to borrow and spend more each and every year. Woe! Woe! Recession! It all comes down to a problem of holding wages down and moving more wealth into the hands of investors. Simple solution is raise wages, tax investments and enact confiscatory taxation on hoards of wealth to get it back into the hands of the working consumers. THAT'S the only way to get an economic recoveery.
Well there is the rub, there is NO precedent for the "confiscation of wealth" besides taxes at death. Wealth is money that has already had taxes paid on it, there is no justification for going back and taking more of it after the fact, no matter how much you want to. Plus, okay you take all the "wealth" away from the "haves" and spend it to help the "have nots," and then what if that doesn't work? How is the economy going to grow, who is going to take any risks or start any companies when they will only have any "wealth" they amass stolen back from the government? The government sure isn't going to pay them back if they risk their money and lose it, so why take the risk if there is no chance at reward? Whether you think it is fair or not, forced wealth redistribution will never work.
At least you are honest and straightforward about what you want though.
If you're referring to the estate tax, we've had it for decades ever since the early 1900s. It you're talking about the use of progressive tax systems to maintain economic equality in the US, we had it during the time after the New Deal and before the decline of the middle class starting with Reagan.
Well, estate taxes (or the death taxes) prevent extreme hoarding of wealth away from the economy and tend to discourage a system of class hierarchy based on heritage. We've had it for decades; it help funds Social Security; personally, we might as well keep it to save entitlements.
Okay, first of all it has worked. Taking money from the wealthy in the form of progressive taxes has helped the middle class by reducing income inequality and establishing a large and efficient welfare state that has greatly helped us become the economic powerhouse that we are today. Keeping wealth concentrated at the top is a recipe for disaster; we experienced that disaster in the form of the collapse of the financial market. Technically, if we took all of the wealth from the wealthy, chances are they would continue to make money; remember, by wealth you mean assets like bonds and stocks, but they still control companies. And even if you include companies, other companies will hire these people to be on their executive boards.
Actually, forced wealth redistribution has worked. It has worked over the past 30 years, as wealth became concentrated in the hands of the few elite. Forced wealth redistribution worked after the passage of the New Deal, as America became more equal economically, leading to largest economic expansion in US history. It can work, and, when used to restore economic equality, it can produce positive effects, both for the American people and for our democracy itself.
And at least you are honest and straightforward about what you want though...
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
I think both of them have to much money and Obama dosen't do his job or mitt either if he gets elected which he probably will ..all they want is power not a job.... you can tell that by the way the economy is right now.
Whgat a pathetic article. Did the last obama win cost Mitt Romney 5 million? I actually paid a higher percentage in taxes than obama sp when is he going to ante up?
A romney win would mean GE and MobilExxon have to start paying taxes!
"A romney win would mean GE and MobilExxon have to start paying taxes!"
You really think that Romney would tax two energy giants? Somebody lives in a dream.
Corporations would see more corporate welfare under Romney, not higher taxes. Get real man.
Well that tells the hold story right there, doesn't it. Old Mitty thinks that needs more money, after all he's a jobs creator? Woop's, no he puts people out of work and sent their jobs overseas right? Just follow the money and you'll see were their heart are.
What you fail to understand is that companies like Bain Capital buy distressed and failing businesses and inject capital in them and figure out how to turn them around into profitable ventures again. Often times that involves downsizing, and letting people go, and making hard choices that maybe the previous ownership was unwilling to take. The alternative though? Letting the company fail and having ALL of those jobs dissapear. So you insist in looking at it as a half glass empty situation (the company had 1,000, now it only has 500, he fired half the people), vs the reality which is more half full (the company would have failed and had 0 jobs, instead they are able to keep 500 jobs, he saved half of the people).
Don't try to explain concepts like private equity to liberals, they already have their talking points and drum beat to march to. If they were as smart as they think they are, they'd be out creating jobs.
Democrats generally say the rich aren't paying their fair share; most Republicans argue that raising taxes on the wealthy would slow investment that creates jobs. The dispute makes it tougher to tackle urgent budget issues, such as whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts again before they expire Jan 1.
Utter rubbish. Taxes on the wealthy were lowered under Bush to the lowest level they'd been since the Hoover administration. Job creation was nearly non-existent.
Under Clinton, taxes on the wealthy were raised and lowered on the middle class. BOOM! 23 million jobs in less than eight years.
Simple experience across the decades refutes your idiotic bromides, conservatives.
But because the average American refuses to vote for anything that has "increase taxes" in its description, the republican party will continue to ravage and loot our economy every other presidency.
I have heard that Americans are willing to see tax increases, maybe even on themselves, if it means getting out of this recession. They are definitely in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy. We just have to see if that equals higher turnout for Obama.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Ahh, the media continue to shill for this failed president. Obama will go down as the worst president in history. Romeny will make a great TWO term president.
SlimJim;You have missed calling the worst prez, he is the prior & if romney gets in we will be in a deep depression before the end of his first term....Tonydfixer........Seattle.
Yeah, dang media stating facts and all. How horrible.
Which translates to: "Obama win could cost Romney tip money"
Dr man; Do not forget, all things happen in due time. You see what we are still paying for from the bush Admin......Tonydfixer.....Seattle.
After thirty years of supply side economics, its only accomplishment was to produce 87% of the National debt. The remaining 13% is due bailing out the economy. When we needed to approach a balance budget under both Democratic and Republican administrations, taxes were temporarily, as during the Vietnam War. or permanently. The last permanent tax "reform" was enable cooperate communists to steal from the real capitalist, the stockholders, especially union pension plans. These are real capitalist, they actually own via purchase (the capitalism is supposed to work) versus dividing the spoils among a few employees (re-distribution of wealth from stockholders to party loyalists just like in communist Russia). It is time for the 1 % to to actually feel some of the pain which they have wrought. Just like past generations, it i time that they recognize that they who have prospered the most in our society, OWE the most to that society. I suspect the Republican nominee disagrees with this idea, just as he did when evaded the draft during a war he favored (just have those poor people fight it for him).
When the GOP ran on a flat tax where everyone pays the same it was the best idea in the world. When you want to make the top 1% pays the same as the bottom 99% then its a problem, a big problem. The funny part is that there are several grassroots organization that want to give the top a tax break, what morons!!! or should I say teabaggers!!!
You can clearly see who Willard is looking out for...the rich. Oh but their investments create jobs...in a pig's eye. Anyone who believes in "trickle down" economics has Urolagnia.
What is all the chatter over very rich people paying more in taxes. I am low income and I pay a higher percentage that the rich. Not all low income folks get the bogus earned income credit. Which in my opinion should be eliminated. A flat tax of 10% for everyone personal and corporate and no loopholes. No more corporate welfare or farm welfare.
I wonder why the mid west vote Republican when they get enormous farm aid not to farm. Seems like welfare to me with the LLC's formed so the whole family gets money for not working. Talk to folks who work in the lower levels at the farm bureau and it is a real eye opener.
Make lobbying illegal. Why 40,000 lobbyiest for 436 law makers?
The numbers are in favor of Democrats this election. Trick is will they turn out? I can not see the gay, woman or Latino vote going for Romney. So if people come out to vote Romney does not win. If they do not then Romney wins.
Five million! Ouch! I could build a car elevator onto my house for five million!
'A house divided will fall'. Until America gets a Congress and a President from the same party (whether it be Republican or Democrat), we will never correct all of the problems that we have. Unfortunately, Obama is not a unifier but is Rommey any better? Also, something that most of us learned as children: you (Congress) can not buy your 'friends'. Stop trying to save the world and put the old USofA as your first priority.
NBC's morning dispatch from the Democrat National Committee is so reassuring -- like the sun coming up. The formula is always the same; throw in some facts, stir with nonsense and exaggeration, and serve as if it were news.
But something sinister snuck in; the fact that the health care law, which is supposed to concentrate on keeping us all healthy, is in fact significantly raising taxes! Oh, I know -- "only on the rich" -- but the fact is that now we don't have to pass another tax, but just change a number to include everybody else who is not likely to vote for whomever wins the Oval Office. It possibly was not a prudent thing to open the Pandora's Box of what taxes, charges, regulations, preferences for special groups is included in what is advertised as a "healthcare" law.
That is exactly what should happen to rich people!!! Duh.